Our task today

The following extract is from P T Forsyth's The Cruciality of the Cross. It's the second half of a long paragraph covering pages 24/5.  I've posted the earlier part of the paragraph here if you feel this second, longer section is missing anything. However, it's this second section that's pertinent to this blog, with its focus on mission. Forsyth doesn't usually use the word mission much (although it does appear, in a form, towards the end of this extract) but it seems to me that this is precisely what he's talking about here. (I've broken it up slightly to aid reading it online.)

What is our task today? It is to take the mass of men (and not only the masses) – inert and hopeless some, others indifferent, others hostile to God – and to reconcile them with God’s holy will and righteous kingdom; but to reconcile them less with the ideal of a kingdom of God than with His way of it. They are keen enough about a kingdom which glorifies human ideals, but the trouble is about God’s ideal and God’s way, about Christ and His cross as the way as well as the goal. The task is to destroy our national and social dislike of that enthusiasm of the cross, to supplant lust by that higher ardour, to bend the strongest wills to the obedience of the holiest, and by moral regeneration to restore men both physically and socially. 

This is a tremendous task. It is the whole object of history. It is far beyond socialism. And no laws can do it, and no change of circumstances, but only Jesus Christ. It is the fruit of His work, of His holy love, His holy spirit, and His holy Church, all flowing from His holy cross. Let us not mistake the kindly fruits of the cross for the moral principle of it. The fruits will not give the principle, but the principle will give the fruits. 

And the more we are preoccupied with social righteousness so much the more we are driven to that centre where the whole righteousness of God and man found consummation, and adjustment, and a power and a career, in the saving judgement of Christ’s cross. Public liberty rest [sic] on inward freedom; and the cross alone gives moral freedom, and moral independence, to the mass of men, who were left to slavery even by the heroic moral aristocracy of stoicism. It is the cross that makes moral worth an infectious power, keeps character from being self-contained [that is, focused on self], and gives a moral guarantee of a steady social future.  The cross is the spring, not of self-possessed and individualist righteousness, but of that creative and contagious goodness which makes possible the social state. Only at the centre of the cross does the man find himself in his kind [at home amongst his fellow beings], and both in God. A creative, missionary, and social ethic springs only from religion; and it springs most from the religion which is able to clothe us with the power of the creative, loving, outgoing God.

 

Wrong-headed about morals

In a recent article in London's The Times, Britain is creating youths who have nothing to lose by crime, Minette Marrin writes:

Morality depends on having something to lose. It isn't just a matter of learning right from wrong, least of all in a post-religious society. Morality is socially constructed. I will respect your property and your person because I want you to respect mine. We both have something to lose. One does not have to be educated in political philosophy to understand that ancient deal. But if I have neither property nor respect from anyone, what's in the deal for me?

Albert Mohler comments on this statement, and Marrin's article, in his latest blog: Modernity, Madness and Morals. Well worth reading for both his and Ms Marrin's insights into what is wrong with our moral judgement these days and what might be done about it. And even though the original article relates to Britain, and the comments to the US, both are pertinent to NZ's social scene.

Tapu Misa on what the church has to say

For those who don't read the NZ Herald, it sometimes takes a while to catch up with opinion pieces and reports that come from that paper.

I've just found a 'perspective' by Tapu Misa, an Auckland journalist with an extensive career across a variety of media. She's been a feature writer for the NZ Herald in the past, and a staff writer for MORE and North & South magazines. She wrote this piece last Wednesday, and it makes a good comparison to the NZ Herald editorial I wrote a post about last week.

In it she looks at whether the church both has the right to pronounce on the nation, and whether it still has the moral integrity to do so. Well worth a read!

Incidentally, Misa's relatively recent conversion experience (2007) is the subject of another one of her columns.